토지인도 등
1. The Defendant collects all trees planted on the land of 2,035 square meters and 610 square meters in Daegu-gun, Daegu-gun, and the Plaintiff.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the grounds for claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff and Eul purchased from F on March 27, 2015, the amount of KRW 416 million for Daegu-gun Daegu-gun Daegu-gun 2035§³ and 610 square meters for D 610 million (hereinafter "each of the instant lands"). After completing the registration of ownership transfer as to each of the instant lands on May 7, 2015, the plaintiff and E completed the registration of ownership transfer as to each of the instant lands on May 7, 2015; the defendant leased each of the instant lands from F, and the fact that the defendant occupied, occupied, and used each of the instant lands by planting pine trees on the instant land.
According to the above facts, as long as the defendant did not assert or prove legitimate title of possession, the defendant is obligated to collect all the trees planted on each land of this case and deliver the above land to the plaintiff, who exercises his right as co-owner of each land of this case as co-owner of each land of this case.
2. On the determination of the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff, who purchased each of the lands of this case, exercised the right to purchase the ground property under Article 643 of the Civil Act, as the Defendant planted trees by leasing the above land from F, the former owner of each of the lands of this case.
In order to exercise the right to demand the purchase of ground against the new owner of a building after the termination of the lease, the lessee's right to demand the purchase of ground falls under the right against the third party that the lessee has against the third party, not the original lessor but the new owner of the building after the extinguishment of the lease.
(See Supreme Court Decision 75Da348 delivered on April 26, 1977). However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above right of lease claimed by the defendant was the right to oppose the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
In addition, if there is no agreement on the time of use in the loan for use under Article 613 of the Civil Code, the defendant should have the sufficient time to use and profit.